> it will only cost us 2-4% of GDP by end of century
The projections suggest that it's much cheaper to avert climate change than to deal with the consequences, and much less painful.
If we can afford to lose x% of GDP dealing with the problems, why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem, and avoid a huge amount of human misery and ecological collapse in the process?
> why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem
We can, and we are. That's why I do what I do.
You're absolutely right, it is much cheaper to avert climate change than deal with the consequences. It's also necessary to transition to sustainable energy eventually because we will run out of fossil fuels regardless of what happens with the climate.
The solutions to climate change are being worked on right now by many talented people around the world. I'm confident we will reach the IPCC SR15 1.5 degree Celsius goals.
We aren't, and we won't. Coal and oil usage are still increasing, and the US is increasing its subsidy for them. Russia, China, and India are still building new coal-fired power plants. Fascist representation in governments is increasing worldwide.
Action is falling far short of what would be needed to cap temperature rise, and there is no motion toward greater enforcement.
Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them.
> Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them.
We only need 2 decades to fix the energy part of emissions, and the IPCC has given us 3.
> and there is no motion toward greater enforcement.
Enforcement isn't needed to get to net zero emissions. It's profitable long term to swap to clean energy and electrified vehicles and appliances, they're more efficient. Also fossil fuel abundance will eventually drop to the point where prices rise.
Free markets will solve our emissions problem, I'm not sure why you are worried about enforcement or the type of governments when it comes to this.
Gdp is a imaginary number madeup by economists using mg outdated pre computer methods.
Gdp will break down under climate change.
Heat causes discomfort, toxins cause mental illness.
Your great America capitalist machine cant even stop mentally corrupted children from shooting their schoolmates. Wake up.
Egyptians lasted for 5000 years before christ was born, their civilization had expired completely during the rise of rome.
our modern society requires (depends) on specialization. It is not good at adaptation.
Our brains principally stopped evolving 50000 years ago. We're still learning how to use them and enhance/repair our bodies.
Gdp is 100 years old.
We're not using gdp for anything in a ClimateChange multiple species foodchain collapse. Capitalism is 150 years old.
We probably aren't even using money in 100 years.
A quantum supremacy machine has broken bitcoin satoshi blocks.
Elons neurAlink connected by starlink allows us to communicate telepathically.
If his hypermind doesn't build it by that time then mine will.
Cheers.
The projections suggest that it's much cheaper to avert climate change than to deal with the consequences, and much less painful.
If we can afford to lose x% of GDP dealing with the problems, why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem, and avoid a huge amount of human misery and ecological collapse in the process?